145. The Artist-Troll War Part 2: NEGATIVITY DESTROYS ALL

I apologise this episode took so long – I really hate only updating once a fortnight. Besides the comic being quite detailed which took longer than an average Zen Pencils piece to complete – I’ve got a few other things happening which kind of threw a spanner in the works. Damn life – getting in the way of me sitting in my room drawing all day! I hope part three won’t take so long to be completed, but I can’t make any promises. Thanks for your patience.

As for the comic itself, I’ve had a lot of um … interesting feedback from part one. Appreciate all the constructive comments.

He does look like Miyazaki! I hope it does turn out to be is him. ALL of his works are quite literally my favorite movies, Princess Mononoke being my favorite movie of all time, so having him be awesome as a character in a comic would pretty much be the best thing ever.

Can’t edit, so I’ll make a new one.
Maybe it would be interesting if, instead of just using a WORST PILOT EVER, you could use real comments made in your art or somewhere else.
It would also keep in line with the quotes you use. It would be troll quotes, but quotes anyway! :p

Looks like the job for 5 teenagers with positive attitude! Not sure if you ever seen Power Rangers in Australia, but that’d be an interesting thing to see for part 3 of this trilogy of terror brought by the Hate Monster haha.

Great job, Gav. Love seeing more of your original pieces come together

i always love your work and at first glance i tought i was going to enjoy this story arc, even if in the first chapter some serious and reasonable criticism was thrown into the troll bandwagon (and that seems to me as intolerant as trolling someone).
but after this ‘chapter’ i’m not so sure anymore. you may surprise me, but if you’re going where i think you’re going, then, well, i don’t feel the message at all.
i’m afraid it’s heading to somewhat of a ‘holier than thou’ attitude, as if artists can’t be criticized by non-artists. well, i’ve been drawing since i was born and writing since my teacher taught me to, and i’ve been doing it professionally for 11 years, but i still listen to anyone who says they like or dislike something i do. i think their opinion is as important as an artists’ or student of art because, well, they’re still people and their opinion still count. making something that brings pleasure to non-artists is what art is all about, after all.
if that’s not where the story’s heading, well, then it could be even worse, because it might be saying that artists can’t be trolls. and they really can, sometimes more hurtfully and viciously than everyone else, for many sucky reasons – from envy to excessive competitiveness. the trolling that always struck me the hardest was the one that came from other artists, because i initially thought they knew how hard it was to create something and how much respect you own to someone who’s brave enough to show his or her creation to others.
i still hope this story amuses me, but so far i’m hoping for the return of the quotes or maybe a new story arc.
anyway, just adding my 2 cents to this. first time i commented online for, like, 7 or 8 years, maybe because of the #hate troll or something like it.
all that said, this comic made me write all this because it made me think about the subject, and your work always acomplishes that – and i think that’s a compliment bigger than any ‘i like this story’ i could give.
cheers!

It’s not a matter of who can criticize whom, it’s a matter of what that criticism is for. At its core, criticism is always supposed to be given with the intention for the recipient to improve and better their work. That’s what criticizing is – you judge work in the hope that it can be better and more than what it is.

That’s not what most people – especially on the internet – are doing when they hide behind the banner of “oh I’m not trolling it’s just my opinion/criticism.” We even had to invent the term “constructive criticism” in order to try and balance it out, when in reality ALL criticism should be constructive, otherwise it’s just frothing.

At the very end, you say “I still hope this story amuses me.” That’s part of the problem here – you’re focused on your own amusement and your own reception of the story above – how it plays out to you, what it means to you – it’s indicative that you’re missing the point and the core message. I would urge you to read it again and try to put yourself outside of your position and into someone else’s shoes. I do totally agree with you on the point that artists definitely can be (and often are!) trolls, and people who create can very often troll others – they’re not mutually exclusive things.

Well, anonymous, I think my biggest problem with that point of view was the old lady’s trolling in the first part, because it was not trolling. Calling something “thin and unconvincing, turgid and unispired” is hardly trolling, and is actually something that should be taken as constructive criticism by the artist. Obviously you can’t please everybody, but you must listen to those you don’t please, because you might just learn something.
And about experiencing it from my own position, well, it’s the only position I want and need to have as a spectator. I won’t watch hours and hours of 90’s romantic comedy just because someone might enjoy it, because it’s not amusing to me. I see no need to fake it or to seek a way to enjoy it, if it’s not natural to me.
When you are creating something, however, you really should seek some common sense and a way to, if not please, at least touch everybody, or as many as possible… And I think that’s the main point that this comic has missed: not all perceived trolling is destructive, some of it are just people with valid complaints trying to make a strong point. The old lady #theatreisdead panels prove it.
Here’s a great example (the Johnny Quest sequence at the very end): http://sevencamels.blogspot.com.br/2013/02/more-great-comic-book-resources.html

> but i still listen to anyone who says they like or dislike something i do

That’s just it – this series isn’t about the artist listening or not listening to critics, its about how we as the audience remember to critique wisely. There’s a big difference between “I thought your cartoon was thought provoking and I have some questions about panel 4 and 7″ and “Your comic sucks, screw you” and “Comics are dead. Your comic was unconvincing, turgid, and uninspiring” and “You should die, you’re a terrible artist”.

The way I view this comic is that the audience has lost their soul, their individuality, and their enjoyment of argument and art, becoming the sarcastic, rigid, negative beings that homogenize themselves on the internet as “trolls”.

Remember what it was like to calmly debate something with someone without the ending being “You suck” or a personal attack of some kind? I do, at least pre-Internet. Rare is the forum these days where you can calmly discuss something, feel free to disagree without being insulted, and enjoy a spirited debate. The last debate I got into I was called a whiner until I explained that I was enjoying the conversation back and forth, even though we were on different sides of the issue.

So to sum it up – I guess it is to say you saw it from the view of the artist, I saw it from the view of the audience, and there’s probably more views out there from other people.

You raise some great points, Concetta! I think your first paragraph sums up my problem with this story pretty well – there was no line drawn between the “die, stay in bed, you suck” and the “unconvincing, turgid and unispiring”, and that seems like the biggest and zenest (like that’s a word lol) point the comic could make, imo.
I think channels such as youtube and twitter tend to be hateful and soulless, but you can always go to places like deviantArt and conceptart.org, where people with knowledge are trying to help. To give another example, I really like boxing, but I don’t like MMA, and one of the reasons is that most boxing fans actually know and appreciate the game, while most guys on the UFC bandwagon don’t want to study or respect the sport and are just looking for a street fight.
I agree that discussing on the internet has become nearly impossible on many mediums. As I said in the OP, I haven’t commented on the internet for nearly 8 years, mostly because of that, and I surely don’t miss it. So I see your point and I agree with it.
But that’s on a troll v. troll or troll v. normal person basis, and this comic seems to be more about troll v. artist basis. I follow some people who create content on youtube that, every now and then, admit that they’ve been close to quitting because of the huge amount of hatefull trolls, and that’s obviously a bad thing. I just wish this story would pay more atention and devote some ink to draw a line between a troll and a reasonable critic (maybe it will, but it doesn’t look like it right now).
Yesterday, for example, I read a professional review of a theatre show and it was very, very harsh, saying it could only amuse empty people and that the story and the lines were as hollow as possible. It was a ruthless review, but it was well written and came from a critic who knows his trade and loves that art, so it surely enrages him seeing it produced in a poor way (I post a link on anonymous’ comment above that shows that kind of rage).
Anyway, nice argument, you don’t suck. Cheers!

Im feeling a victim complex….just because someone thinks your comics are trite and contrived instead of inspirational doesn’t make them a hate monster who wants to destroy creativity. It just means your art appeals to a different crowd. Like…people who decorate dentists offices, or like moms forwarding emails.

This is a valid point. You might be missing something important, however.

Obviously no art is going to appeal to everyone but if you don’t like something, you have a choice. You can just say, “That isn’t something that appeals to me” or even “I really don’t like that” or… you can become nasty and attack the artist. Trolls are the latter. They tend to attack the artist personally while hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. It is a real problem.

I don’t think that the “victim card” is being played here. I think he is pointing out a real problem that artists encounter every day and one that we need to find a solution to.

The root of negativity is shown in a metaphorical way in the comic series. When things are presented as metaphors they are more tackling the idea than individuals themselves. There is so much to be learned in the spaces we give to think about things rather than taking them literally.
Metaphoric or allegoric work allows us to contemplate the varying perspectives that surround and idea rather than the actual characters/figures for example presented in the comic. We gain the chance to think about all of the ideas that surround negativity and hate rather than taking them at a literal level. For example:
What is at the root of negativity? How does its “seed” grow once it is watered? What happens when a person allows themselves to be taken over by it? Or affected wholly by it.
Thank you again Gav, for a thought provoking and perspective-shifting work: ) : )

The point isn’t about criticism, it’s about being hateful and trolling. There is a huge difference between them! I work as an editor for a small press and many of our authors love getting criticism, especially when someone doesn’t like something, because it helps them learn and grown. A troll, though, is just someone who causes discord and laughs about it, they may even like the thing their trolling about. And, a critic doesn’t need to be hateful and say things like, “Why do you even bother getting out of bed?” – when someone does that, the only thing they are proving is what an ass they are, and they will just be written off. Critic strive to create discussion, even if people feel strongly one way or the other. Leave the negativity where it belongs, nowhere.

Wow Gav! This original work is getting amazing! I love the idea first of all, but the drawings also are great! Well, they always are, but these are also funny! I love the face of the guy running in the very first frame, I read the strip this morning when I was still in bed, can’t wait for the next part!!!!

Good things don’t need to be rushed. It’s always nice to see a good comic, even if it took longer to make. I’m looking forward to part 3. Keep up the good work.
I can only speak for myself, but don’t rush into things. You’re doing one hell of a job.

Oh noes! Will the Artist Resistance Team be able to stop the #hate monster?

People’s comments on this are indeed interesting. So many people seem to think you’re taking on criticism in general, instead of specifically the unnecessarily hateful trolling. Maybe the trolling you wrote wasn’t vitriolic enough? (And maybe you should take that as a compliment, that insulting people doesn’t come naturally to you? )

One of the examples of ‘hate’ from the first comic was “meh.” No kidding. Meh. Seriously, if you’re going to decapitate people with explosive green slime for saying “meh” to your work, you are a passive-aggressive fairy princess. That’s one of the things you go through in art school — many teachers believe really rough critique is the only critique worth giving, and you’re expected to stand up in front of the class and take it. With good grace. It’s part of the training. I’ve been a professional illustrator my whole adult life, and believe me, that training has come in handy a time or two.

A smattering of over-the-top judgement, picking a specific area in order to justify a broad-brushed criticism of the whole, then in the middle there a sound anecdotal story that’s flimsy support but still meaningful nevertheless, a short justificationof dismissing everyone’s experiences with said anecdotal experience and its implied authority, and then a minimizing outtro that is one part “lesson to be learned” and one part “this is why i’m better than this!”

I’m really glad someone gave us such a textbook offering to study from.

I’m always entertained to people who don’t understand the point or the purpose of criticism defend their actions and shield themselves with it.

I would encourage anyone who really does feel like the things we saw in the previous comic (and indeed, this one) actually attempt to create something or contribute something to an audience as wide as the internet or to people who care less for the creator or the creation than they do for their own opinions and desire to speak. It’s clear that “interesting” feedback comes from people who have either never bothered to create and feel that responding is all they need to – or rather, are entitled to – do, or from people who understand exactly what they’re doing and have no desire to be called out or see themselves minimized for it while the actions of the people who actually contribute something of worth, inform, beauty, or value exalted.

Remember that “criticism” should always be borne from a desire for someone to do better, to improve, and for a work to be more than it currently is, especially compared against the creator’s other work or other work in the field or area.

It’s very easy to judge what’s criticism and what’s trolling – if the discussion centers around that improvement, if the “tough love” comes with love in it, and if the comments are designed to encourage that growth, then it’s criticism. If the reaction is expository, centered around the feelings or opinions of the person reacting, focused on their personal experiences or justifications, and borne not out of a desire for growth but out of a desire to speak or be heard on a platform equal to the creator’s, then it’s the latter. The only question is when people will consider that difference *before* reacting, instead of trying to fit themselves into their preferred one *afterward.*

The Hate Monster eats people; critics – the responsible ones – savour work and discuss its merits. Ideally, criticism results from someone who’s participating in a tradition of commentary and can – theoretically – both divorce the artist from the work and (especially in modern criticism) consider the artist’s background and intentions as relevant parts of the work itself. Good criticism wonders whether a piece of art fully addresses the scope of the idea it addresses. It’s easy to be negative. It’s harder to see the bigger picture that art and imagination fit into.

Thank you for this comic. Cue the dance beat: I ain’t afraid of no troll.

Ow! This hit home–I’ve had a not so great day and spend a good part of it being a tinier version of your green monster, not towards artists but towards service people. Fortunately I managed to contain it and not spew the verbal garbage I was holding inside, and everything’s worked out… But I’m very aware that the hate monster is hurting itself as well as those it hates.

I agree with the commenter above about the ART=T shirts! And I can’t wait for part three!

Come on dudes. The comic is basically about trolls who hate for the sake of hating. The ones who will slag people and their work off to make themselves feel better. It’s so blatantly NOT aimed at critics who constructively give their comments about other peoples “art.” Some of you are reading waaay to far into this.

Thanks for the amazing comics Gav. I love the fact that I stumbled upon your site by fixing a guys laptop who had it open in his browser and being intruiged by the name- fate or what

What a lot of readers of the first comic aren’t seeing is that it isn’t about individual “meh” comments being so vile and evil. The “hate monster” isn’t an individual bored, self-centered commentator on the internet. Rather it’s the result of all such commentary taken together as a whole and the kind of environment it creates.

It is in the same vein as 4chan going on a rampage and “doxing” random victims. Individuals, including card-carrying trolls will cry that they – individually – aren’t doing anything so bad. But this is disingenuous. They are willfully taking part in an enterprise that multiplies its effect via force of numbers. When the internet turns its Eye of Sauron on an individual, the effect can be crushing and far, far out of scale with what any one person ever experienced before the Internet existed – outside of a tiny handful of celebrities and nationally known politicians.

So the average Internet denizen who says “dis sux” can be ignorant of what they’re taking part in with their unhelpful, useless comment. They’re just adding to a giant pile of crud that builds up over time. This crud becomes a new kind of peer pressure that doesn’t really provide constructive, instructive information for people such as content creators. It just provides pushback for them creating anything at all.

Besides, it has become a common narcissistic attitude among internet users that their junk comments are somehow helpful – “If I didn’t call this shit shit, where would we be! What a service I am providing!”

Good point well made, Mori. However, I think this would be the time to mention a certain Robert Stanek.

Robert Stanek is a self-published fantasy author who releases the same few books under multiple titles and writes hundreds of sockpuppet reviews for his work praising it to the heavens, in an attempt to sound legitimate and trick people into buying his books. He engages in flame wars with people who have helpful, useful things to say, or who rightfully discourage readers from buying his terrible books, or who try to investigate him. He is immoral, a conman, a narcissist who doesn’t listen to those who are more qualified (and might I add civilised) than he is. He doesn’t need his ego ‘messed with a bit’ – he’s too arrogant to take notice of any criticism – but negative feedback of his work is valuable to readers, because the only positive feedback is typed by Stanek himself.

I love your work. You have a wonderful, playful drawing style, and your unique interpretations of the quotes can freshen up even the most stale of cliches. I have to say, though, I’m a little torn about this comic. I don’t think it’s entirely clear what’s being said here.

I’m a playwright myself, and I can sympathise with your position. I agonise over criticism, even when it’s constructive. Especially when it’s constructive. And there’s the catch: you’ve titled this instalment ‘negativity destroys all’. But the comic’s not just about all forms of “negativity”. It’s about trolling. There’s a big difference between a troll and a legitimate critic, even if neither of them liked a particular creative work.

Trolls write negative comments because they know that’s what’s likely to get a rise out of people. The main troll at the beginning of the comic gives very few concrete examples for why he dislikes the work. He’s just mudslinging. And that’s what distinguishes him from, say, the old lady who criticises the actor. Trolls write to provoke, to get attention. Critics, even amateur critics, write for the benefit of the audience of a work (as well as, possibly, the creator), whether the work itself is of good quality or not. A good critic gives specific examples of a work’s strengths and weaknesses; what they liked and disliked in it, and therefore, whether it is deserving of support.

Let’s take ‘Twilight’ as an example. There was an enormous response to that series, both positive and negative. At the time that I read it, I was a teenager, and a lot of my peers were raving about it. I read it, on my sister’s recommendation, and I wished I hadn’t wasted my time. I could see the appeal for some readers – it was an easy-to-read romance, and in certain ways it was a fresh interpretation of the paranormal genre. But I would have been grateful to hear an opinion other than ‘it’s great, you have to read it’. I might not have got my hopes up so high if I knew, for example, that the plot was thin or that the principal character was so flat and insipid. Simply put, I thought it was a bad book that could have been improved if someone had read it, pointed out what needed improving, and encouraged the author to develop it further. Instead, it was published as it was. That immediately lowered the standards for young adult fiction aimed at girls. All of a sudden, it seemed like everything that was coming out was jumping on the Twilight bandwagon. I couldn’t find my Hermione Grangers, my Lyra Silvertongues, my Renn of the Raven Clans anywhere. Instead, all that my classmates seemed to want to read about was Bella Swan clones. They were giving their time to books that didn’t deserve the attention, and ignoring those that did. They were passing up gourmet meals for Big Macs.

If that example wasn’t really clear, I’ll provide another. I was a high achiever, and I did Visual Arts in VCE. I was so used to hearing people say I was good at art that when my new art teacher started telling me I could do better, it was quite a shock. But that’s the thing: my work *wasn’t* good enough. When I tried to work in unfamiliar media, my first shot was, as you’d expect, not up to par. With specific, constructive feedback, my teacher pushed me constantly to do more sketches, think outside the box, develop the concept, work harder. And sometimes he was harsh. He would tell me the truth. He pointed out when something was ugly, or unoriginal, or didn’t fit, and sometimes I hated him for it. Sometimes it felt like he was nitpicking. But I acted on what he said, and I used his feedback, and I worked my arse off to build a sculpture of a robot which, without his guidance and occasional negativity, would not have been as beautiful or thematically significant as it eventually became.

That is the place of negative feedback: to let us know when we have not done our best work, and how we can improve it in future. Praising something just because making art is hard does as much damage as slamming it: anyone who’s ever done a writing workshop ought to know that. Without constructive criticism, we stagnate. We become lazy. We have nobody we can try to impress, and we lose our eye for quality. Besides which, a world in which everybody had the same opinions would be pretty dull.

TL;DR: you’re fantastic, trolls are bad, but negativity does not destroy everything. It gives us something to work against, something to try to overcome, and as much as it can hurt, it is valuable.

Hi, I won’t attempt to give a name because it might discredit my studio at such a critical period of our development. But I will share this:

You wave a false banner and you’re bringing this down to your personal level.
You draw with your heart and use your hand to write the words of others. At first I thought you to be carrier of these people’s voices. A humble servant to their cause when others simply dont have the time to read their inspirational words in books. For that I thank you. Had you been a selfless being you could have elevated this to be a force, a movement. But now, more and more I am increasingly convinced that you simply take these words of others and put your own spin on it, as if making it your own and absorbing all the praise and accolades for them. I wish I am wrong on that, but artists should get their dues after all.

And now I see this in today’s comic, your own personal agony projected on the world of comics. Your OWN comics… have now become a wordless monster and even now it takes the faces of these other more accomplished artists and I bet I know what you’ll do with it next. You will probably have them come out of the woodwork and save the world. Your world.

But that isn’t the lesson here. This isn’t about trolls. It was never about Trolls. Trolls will always happen not because people will always have weakness, but because you’re letting yourself have weakness. You’ve made yourself out to be a person with an ego, and a spotlight to shine on your work, and now your problems. Where is your inspirational words then ? Were they hollow ? Did those people’s advice do nothing for you ? Is this problem simply THAT new that no prolific mind has risen up to talk about it ?

It is not. Criticism has always existed. Only the medium has changed it will invite praisers and criticizers alike and there will always be those that holler in theaters. I mentioned earlier that I ran a studio, we’re nothing special but we always get artists and they all had egos and naturally we would try our best to let them see why their work needed improvement, even if they have poured their work on it. Let me tell you the results are volatile. Once the boat is shook they throw tantrums they draw at straws, they make excuses, they don’t take our editor’s advice and fix objective mistakes. We don’t actually make the artist change the subject matter or the story, because it is theirs to fix in their own way. Their own way.

I want you to really think about what zenpencils mean. Because this is definitely not Zen like behavior nor will I be convinced that this can end well.

Although I don’t agree 100% with the anonymous point of view, brushing off his fairly well written perspective of these comics as “idiocy” because you don’t agree with what he says makes you just like the monster in the comic. I love the work of Zen Pencils and am excited to see where this series goes, but I understand that Gavin isn’t perfect and his comics may not appeal to everyone.

I totally agree, Artnonymous. I hope Gav reads this and takes a moment to think about it, because sometimes artists can lose track of what is important to them and to their public (who may become their ‘old’ public after such changes).

I find it curious to say that hating art is not good. Many artists actively provoke people and try to instill feelings of dislike or hatred in the art they create. I think a worse response than hatred is indifference. If people hate your art, you’re connecting on a deep emotional level – people are engaging with the art! If people ignore your art or respond with an indifferent “meh” – without any emotional response – this is the true soul crusher of artists. What’s the opposite of hate or love or any emotional response? Indifference.

I think your work is amazig, and its great that you are trying something different, you have been giving us beautiful stories through differents poems or quotes, but now you are telling the story with just your own words, and thats is great! your work is growing! crongratulations! I really want to see your how this story develops!
best lucks!

I just read a lot of comments about “what if I only hate stuff that sucks”or “some art is meant to be hated” etc. A lot of people seem to be missing Gav’s point. It isn’t just about hatred towards artists, its about the spiteful ways in which that hatred is expressed.

Hayao Miyazaki would never endorse this self-indulgent attitude. He is extremely critical and has high standards — check out what he’s said about otaku and Osamu Tezuka (the godfather of anime and manga!). Please do a little damn research on whether someone agrees with your point of view before piling a fictional version of them on your soapbox.

I really liked this one and am looking forward to seeing where it goes. I ran a webcomic myself for many years but the trolls and negativity got to be too much for me. I finally decided to put the series behind a paywall. My app developer husband has gone the same route, no longer offering free (or more accurately: ad-supported) apps. Financially, it was a great decision and to this day, no one has opted to pay to troll my work but it makes me a bit sad. I wonder if people would be so tolerant of trolling if they knew how much free stuff it was costing them.